IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recommend discarding bad, unauthentication packets (#2141)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A035128AFB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:37:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fr3aXWDWA7bu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:37:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAC70128766 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:37:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:36:59 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544686619; bh=3TkjhAazjZ/q8qIpqi2xw/EypPf3583vY4NoUk+lnj4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=nlv3e9S8rQZxSrf/SqLQ7GWEP+7zwuiozm1WCRKT208SMVxhHpwYKJ7GX59x2oYQy RyFjQIf1YQ1hFXZiiu/e41hjBIHcyc1EyxFYZgXopTzkaRj8nnma/a303Y1bLdiO7D F3h6B5kyC5V2HBD51OrNxWRcci6+53kZHLKlG45A=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab14cb30605181ae0d4aad6a891f4bdcb7c7a4b24892cf000000011829ce1b92a169ce174735aa@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2141/review/184531046@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2141@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2141@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Recommend discarding bad, unauthentication packets (#2141)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c120c1bb8cd1_16ab3fe4eb2d45b4670922"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/sXgFqMZoF_zVKPcfWMM75YBmtCQ>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:37:03 -0000

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1000,6 +1000,12 @@ to more quickly identify when a connection becomes unusable.
 Packets that are matched to an existing connection, but for which the endpoint
 cannot remove packet protection, are discarded.
 
+Invalid packets without packet protection, such as Initial, Retry, or Version
+Negotiation, SHOULD be discarded without altering connection state.  An endpoint

I tend to agree with @marten-seemann. I wonder if we might rather say MAY here (or "can"), because people might wonder what the anticipated behavior is, without the definition of what "invalid" means.

Does it mean a packet with a broken encoding? Or does it mean a frame containing a semantically invalid frame; i.e. ACK containing a PN that was never used?

My understanding is that we do not want to define "invalid", hence the suggestion to use a weaker word.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2141#pullrequestreview-184531046

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email